Delhi High Court
Sh.Anil Kumar Bagania vs Smt. Shiv Rani & Ors. on 19 November, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC. REV. No.86/2012
% 19th November , 2014
SH.ANIL KUMAR BAGANIA ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.D.Ansari, Adv.
VERSUS
SMT. SHIV RANI & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. O.P.Aggarwal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the DRC Act') is filed by the petitioner-tenant
impugning the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 17.8.2011
by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend
application filed by the petitioner-tenant and has decreed the bonafide
necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act with
respect to the tenanted premises being one shop bearing no. 2896 on ground
floor of premises bearing no. 2893-2899, Chehlpuri, Kinari Bazar, Delhi-
110006.
RCR 86/2012 Page 1 of 6
2. As per the eviction petition filed before the court below need
for bonafide petition was projected with respect to petitioner
no.2/respondent no.2 herein and his son Sh. Sidharth who are jobless and
therefore they require two shops. Petitioner no.3 in the eviction petition is a
widow and she has no work to do and thus she also requires a shop because
she has experience of boutique business as well as beauty parlour business
and on obtaining a shop premises she would run the business of a boutique
or beauty parlour. One shop was required with respect to petitioner no.4 in
the eviction petition (respondent no.4 herein) who is unmarried and aged
about 27 years and who is doing no work and therefore he requires the shop
to run a business. One shop was required for the petitioner no.5 in the
eviction petition (respondent no.5 herein) as he is 25 years and is jobless and
therefore requires a shop for running a business. Petitioner no.6 in the
eviction petition (respondent no.6 herein) is unmarried and also unemployed
and hence he requires one shop for carrying on business. As per the eviction
petition therefore at least six shops were required and therefore since there
are four shops in the premises which are in possession of different tenants,
one being with the present petitioner, four separate eviction petitions were
filed against four separate tenants including the present petitioner.
RCR 86/2012 Page 2 of 6
3. In a bonafide necessity eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e)
of the DRC Act three aspects are required to be seen for decreeing the
petition. Firstly, there must exist a relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties and that the landlords are the owners of the property.
Second requirement is that the bonafide need projected is for the landlords
and /or their family members. Thirdly, it was to be shown that the landlords
do not have alternative suitable accommodation because of which the need
would stand satisfied.
4. Before me, it is not disputed that respondents are the
owners/landlords of the suit premises. What has been argued is that the
respondents do not have a bonafide need because respondent nos. 4 and 6
are working in companies M/s Home Appliance and Ozone Pvt. Ltd., Health
Club respectively. It is also argued that respondent no. 2 is a drug addict and
not doing any work and therefore no shop is required for him. It is also
argued that two shops bearing nos. 2898 and 2900 in the same property have
been sold recently and which if not sold, would have been alternative
suitable premises. I may note that there were other aspects which were
stated in the leave to defend application including those as noted in the
RCR 86/2012 Page 3 of 6
impugned judgment, but these other aspects are not pressed before this
Court.
5. So far as the argument that the respondent nos.4 and 6 are in
fact working in companies is concerned, respondents in reply to leave to
defend application of the present petitioner have denied the same. Petitioner
has not placed anything on record to show that respondent nos. 4 and 6 are
working in the companies as alleged by the petitioner and therefore as
repeatedly held by this Court and the Supreme Court in catena of judgments
that bald assertions cannot create triable issue. This argument of the
petitioner is therefore rejected.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner very vehemently argued that
petitioner must be given an opportunity to prove his case by evidence that
the respondent nos.4 and 6 are working and therefore do not require any
shop and respondent no.2 is a drug addict who would not be requiring any
shop. I have already dealt above the issue of respondent nos. 4 & 6 as to they
not working and so far as the argument that leave be granted qua lack of
requirement of respondent no.2 as he is a drug addict, the argument is
misconceived for the reason that even if respondent no.2 who is said to be a
drug addict is removed from the list of persons who require a shop, five
RCR 86/2012 Page 4 of 6
shops still will be required and there are admittedly only four shops in the
premises and one of which is with the petitioner. Therefore, even if the need
of respondent no.2 is ignored, yet the eviction petition will have to be
decreed.
7. The second argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is that
two shops have been sold, and to which the respondents in their reply to the
leave to defend application stated that the said shops were sold for
urgent/pressing financial needs, and the shops were in fact sold to old
tenants who were already in these shops as tenants and consequently it is
argued that there is no illegality or malafides in the actions of the
respondents. Once the respondents in their reply to leave to defend
application gave a valid reason of pressing/urgent financial needs, and the
petitioner did not file any rejoinder-affidavit disputing these aspects, no
triable issue arises for the petitioner to claim that there exits malafides in the
actions of the respondents selling the two shops. I must also reiterate the
aspect that the shops were sold to old tenants who were already occupying
tenanted shops and therefore once there existed a pressing need which is not
denied by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the actions of the respondents
are malafide because surely in a large family which six respondents have,
RCR 86/2012 Page 5 of 6
financial needs would exist, and thus landlords can surely sell their shops
which are already with old tenants. On so doing by the landlords bonafide
need with respect to other shops which exists, cannot be said to have been
defeated or taken away.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition and
the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
NOVEMBER 19, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
